Purdue University
Purdue e-Pubs
School of Engineering Education Faculty
Publications School of Engineering Education
6-14-2015
Tensions of Integration in Professional Formation:
Investigating Development of Engineering
Students' Social and Technical Perceptions
James L. Huff Harding University Brent Jesiek Purdue University W. C. Oakes Purdue University Carla B. Zoltowski Purdue University Kavitha D. Ramane
See next page for additional authors
Follow this and additional works at:http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/enepubs Part of theEngineering Education Commons
This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information.
Huff, James L.; Jesiek, Brent; Oakes, W. C.; Zoltowski, Carla B.; Ramane, Kavitha D.; and Graziano, William, "Tensions of Integration in Professional Formation: Investigating Development of Engineering Students' Social and Technical Perceptions" (2015). School of Engineering Education Faculty Publications. Paper 30.
Authors
James L. Huff, Brent Jesiek, W. C. Oakes, Carla B. Zoltowski, Kavitha D. Ramane, and William Graziano
Paper ID #12895
Tensions of Integration in Professional Formation: Investigating
Develop-ment of Engineering Students’ Social and Technical Perceptions
Prof. James L. Huff, Harding University
James Huff is an assistant professor of engineering at Harding University, where he primarily teaches multidisciplinary engineering design and electrical engineering. His research interests are aligned with how engineering students develop in their career identity while also developing as whole persons. James received his Ph.D. in engineering education and his his M.S. in electrical and computer engineering, both from Purdue University. He received his bachelor’s in computer engineering at Harding University. Prof. Brent K Jesiek, Purdue University, West Lafayette
Dr. Brent K. Jesiek is Associate Professor in the Schools of Engineering Education and Electrical and Computer Engineering at Purdue University. He is also an Associate Director of Purdue’s Global En-gineering Program, leads the Global EnEn-gineering Education Collaboratory (GEEC) research group, and is the recipient of an NSF CAREER award to study boundary-spanning roles and competencies among early career engineers. He holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Michigan Tech and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Science and Technology Studies (STS) from Virginia Tech. Dr. Jesiek draws on expertise from engineering, computing, and the social sciences to advance understanding of geographic, disciplinary, and historical variations in engineering education and practice.
Dr. William C. Oakes, Purdue University, West Lafayette
William (Bill) Oakes is the Director of the EPICS Program and one of the founding faculty members of the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. He has held courtesy appointments in Mechanical, Environmental and Ecological Engineering as well as Curriculum and Instruction in the College of Education. He is a registered professional engineer and on the NSPE board for Professional Engineers in Higher Education. He has been active in ASEE serving in the FPD, CIP and ERM. He is the past chair of the IN/IL section. He is a fellow of the Teaching Academy and listed in the Book of Great Teachers at Purdue University./ He was the first engineering faculty member to receive the national Campus Compact Thomas Ehrlich Faculty Award for Service-Learning. He was a co-recipient of the National Academy of Engineering’s Bernard Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education and the recipient of the National Society of Professional Engineers’ Educational Excellence Award and the ASEE Chester Carlson Award. He is a fellow of the American Society for Engineering Education and the National Society of Professional Engineers.
Dr. Carla B. Zoltowski, Purdue University, West Lafayette
Carla B. Zoltowski, Ph.D., is Co-Director of the EPICS Program at Purdue University. She received her B.S. and M.S. in electrical engineering and Ph.D. in engineering education, all from Purdue University. She has served as a lecturer in Purdue’s School of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Dr. Zoltowski’s academic and research interests include human-centered design learning and assessment, service-learning, ethical reasoning development and assessment, leadership, and assistive technology.
Ms. Kavitha Durga Ramane
Prof. William G Graziano, Purdue University, West Lafayette
c
American Society for Engineering Education, 2015
P
Tensions of Integration in Professional Formation:
Investigating Development of Engineering Students'
Social and Technical Perceptions
Abstract
This brief paper depicts a current snapshot of an ongoing investigation that probes how students reconcile social and technical forms of identity in engineering education. While the detailed results are represented in other publications1,2, this paper highlights the study in its current form
in order to indicate what will be discussed at the poster session that corresponds to this paper.
Summary of Background
Twenty-first century engineers face incredible challenges and opportunities, many of which are socially complex, transcending the traditional “technical” boundaries of engineering3,4. The
technology produced by engineers must not only function as predicted by mathematical and theoretical models but must also operate beneficially and seamlessly in complex social contexts. In this sense, engineers must embody an integrated social and technical – or sociotechnical – identity rather than a dualistic social/technical one5,6,7.
A growing body of scholarship has discussed how dominant cultures of engineering shape students’ and professionals’ understandings of social and technical dimensions of their work5-12.
Further, engineering education research has advanced understanding of how engineering identity is formed by external, structural forces13-16. Yet, from a psychological perspective, we know little
about how engineering students come to perceive and embody their identities as engineers, especially in relation to social and technical dimensions of these identities. Thus, we organized this study around the following research questions.
RQ0: How do students psychologically experience identity trajectories of becoming engineers? RQ1: How do students perceive the social and technical features of engineering identity? RQ2: How do students internally experience their identities as engineers, particularly with
regard to social and technical dimensions of these identities?
RQ3: How do social and technical perceptions of their engineering identity develop and change in the course of the engineering curriculum or in the transition to the workplace?
Summary of Methods
To respond to these research questions, we have conducted two longitudinal studies using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA)17. One study focused on 7 graduating seniors of
Purdue University as they transitioned into the workplace, and the second study focused on 7 first-year students transitioning to engineering degree coursework.
Additionally, a third phase of the study is leveraging findings from these earlier two phases in order to analyze the transitions of students from their sophomore to their junior years. The third phase of the investigation involves interviewing a broader base of students (around 20-30) and
P
applying a more deductive strategy to analyzing common themes, based on the inductive findings of the first two studies.
Summary of Findings
The first phase of the investigation has produced robust and nuanced understanding of students’ engineering identity trajectories throughout and beyond the curriculum. Detailed descriptions of these themes may be found elsewhere1. Specifically, the following 7 psychological themes were
found for male participants in the first study:
1) Becoming more of an engineer: Feeling the responsibility and credibility that comes with identifying as an engineer.
2) Questioning the engineering-self: Contending with increased levels insecurity about competence as an engineer
3) Adjusting the temporal boundaries of the engineering-self 4) Reaching adulthood while (or through) becoming engineers
5) Realizing a broader purpose of a technical education: Finding value in learning the content— not necessarily the content itself.
6) Remaining more than an engineer: A continued priority on forms of self beyond the bounds of engineering
7) Continuing to view the engineering career as a gateway to something beyond being a technical engineer
Additionally, 9 psychological themes for women participants of the first study:
1) An expanded sense of an engineering-self: From primarily cultivating personal interests and abilities to feeling increased responsibility to others.
2) Questioning the engineering-self: Contending with increased levels insecurity about competence as an engineer
3) Adopting refined (or new) strategies to engineering problem-solving: Crossing the gap between engineering problems at school and in the workplace
4) Adjusting the temporal boundaries of the engineering-self
5) Increasingly attending to the interpersonal qualities of being an engineer 6) Feeling an increased sense of distance from the family home
7) Embodying an increasingly personalized identity of being a woman in engineering 8) Continuing to hold the perspective that technical knowledge is core to being an engineer 9) Remaining more than an engineer: A continued priority on forms of self beyond the
bounds of engineering.
Data collection is being finalized for the second phase that is analyzing the transition from freshman to sophomore year. Findings from the first two studies are being leveraged in order to provide our initial understanding in a thematic analysis on sophomore engineering students. Thus far, the findings of the investigation highlight the complexity of becoming both engineers, specifically by demonstrating a somewhat contradictory relationship between what participants perceived to be engineering and how they actually embodied an engineering-self. They further
P
demonstrate the manifold ways that participants realized and prioritized identities outside of engineering and how these multiple selves interacted in ways that affected their engineering identities. Further, findings for both male and female groups suggest that some psychological patterns might be related to gender. In sum, the findings depict a complex picture of engineering-students-turned-engineers as whole persons. By focusing on how engineering identity
development is embodied, the findings generate multiple theoretical insights that bear relevance for engineering education research and provocative implications that bear significance for engineering educators, students, and employers.
Broader Implications
While the investigation is ongoing, we are considering the broader implications based on our present findings. We present two broader implications that are based on results from the first phase of the study that investigated the identity development of seniors as they transitioned to the engineering workplace.
One early finding from this study suggests that engineering students do not completely realize how their work affects others until after they graduate (see the first theme of each gender). This finding indicates that engineering educators can better foster a sense of social responsibility in students by letting them practice such responsibility in college. Such practice might come from courses that allow engineering students to design projects to benefit real people in the
community – that is, service-learning. In general, if better understanding how engineers come to think about social and technical aspects of their profession, we can provide sound
recommendations to engineering educators on how they can better instill social considerations of engineering into their degree programs.
This investigation also provides insights into how engineering education programs might create a more welcoming environment to populations that are currently underrepresented. For example, one early finding of this study suggests that women engineering students increasingly use their majors in order to develop personal relationships as well as technical thinking (see Theme 5 in the women participants). Engineering degree programs, then, might consider how they can better create a welcoming atmosphere for their women students by creating programs or events that allow for students to form personal friendships. Such welcoming environments might be critical to increasing enrollment in engineering among women.
References
1. Huff, J. L. (2014). Psychological journeys of engineering identity from school to the workplace: How
students become engineers among other forms of self. Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations
Publishing (3669254).
2. Huff, J. L., Smith, J. A., Jesiek, B. K., Zoltowski, C. B., Graziano, W. G., & Oakes, W. C. (2014). From methods to methodology: Reflection on keeping the philosophical commitments of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Proceedings of the 2014 ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. October 2014, Madrid.
3. National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2012). Grand challenges for engineering. Retrieved February 1, 2015 from http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/challenges.aspx.
P
4. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Body of knowledge committee of the committee on academic prerequisites for professional practice. (2008). Civil engineering body of knowledge for the 21st
century: Preparing the civil engineer of the future (second edition). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil
Engineers.
5. Faulkner, W. (2000). Dualisms, hierarchies, and gender in engineering. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 759-792.
6. Cech, E. A. (2014). Culture of disengagement in engineering education? Science, Technology & Human
Values, 39(1), 42-72.
7. Trevelyan, J. (2010). Reconstructing engineering from practice. Engineering Studies, 2(3), 175-195. 8. Bucciarelli (2003). Engineering philosophy. Delft: Delft University Press.
9. Bovy, M., & Vinck. D. (2003). Social complexity and the role of the object: Installing household waste containers. In D. Vinck (Ed.), Everyday engineering: An ethnography of design and innovation (53-75). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Forsythe, D. E. (2001). Studying those who study us: An anthropologist in the world of artificial
intelligence. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11. Downey, G., & Lucena, J. (1997). Engineering selves. In Downey, G. and Dumit, J. (Eds.), Cyborgs and
citadels (117-142). Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press.
12. Lagesen, V. A. & Sørensen, K. H. (2009). Walking the line? The enactment of the social/technical binary in software engineering. Engineering Studies, 1(2), 129-149.
13. Jorgenson, J. 2002. “Engineering Selves: Negotiating Gender and Identity in Technical Work.” Management Communication Quarterly. Vol. 15 (3), 350–380.
14. Capobianco, B. M. 2006. “Undergraduate Women Engineering their Professional Identities.” Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering. Vol. 12 (2), 1–24.
15. Eliot, M. & Turns, J. 2011. “Constructing Professional Portfolios: Sense-Making and Professional Identity Development for Engineering Undergraduates.” Journal of Engineering Education. Vol. 100 (4). pp. 630-654.
16. Jungert, T. 2013. “Social Identities among Engineering Students and Through their Transition to Work: A Longitudinal Study.” Studies in Higher Education. Vol. 38 (1). pp. 39-52.
17. Smith, J. A., P. Flowers, and M. Larkin. 2009. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method,
and Research. London: Sage Publications, Ltd.
P
